No Internal Zionist War of Importance Says “new Palestine” Editorial

be found, in our judgment not only within the group which departed in 1921. There are Zionist personalities of capacity in leadership who have perforce kept in the background since the budget period, the money-collection period began its life in Zionism. They must be brought back to Zionist service.”

Commenting on Mr. de Haas’s recent article in the “Day,” the editorial says:

“Upon the basis of this article, it is impossible to speak not only of a united front, but even of peace. If this is the reply of the Mack group to the suggestion of a united front, it is a deliberate refusal of all proposals that do not include the continuation of vendetta and feud. It does not suggest cooperation; it suggests war. It does not suggest mutual understanding; it proposes complete dominance. The present administration does not propose dominance, nor will it give its consent to be dominated. If Mr. de Haas speaks for the Mack group, it may be taken that the group he speaks for rejects all proposals that have been made by third parties looking to the creation of a united administrative front. If the insolence of Mr. de Haas is shared by other members of the group, if his deliberate rehashing of obsolete ideas based upon a complete rejection of all that has been learned during the past ten years is a summary of the views of the Mack group, then the debate is closed. If he does not speak for the Mack group, it would seem to be to the best interests of the movement if some other person took the floor to speak an authentic word on behalf of that group.”